1 / 24

Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning: Deemed Measure Review and Update

Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning: Deemed Measure Review and Update. Regional Technical Forum June 29 th , 2010. Overview of Measure. Measure Description Early retirement of residential refrigerators and freezers In-home pickup: main method

sheadon
Download Presentation

Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning: Deemed Measure Review and Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning:Deemed Measure Review and Update Regional Technical Forum June 29th, 2010

  2. Overview of Measure • Measure Description • Early retirement of residential refrigerators and freezers • In-home pickup: main method • Retailer pickup: programs beginning to explore this option • Measure Requirement • Must be in working condition (makes cold) • At least 10 ft3 in capacity • Must be decommissioned and its components recycled • History • Originally, RTF established a deemed calculator • June 2005 – RTF established deemed savings for residential refrigerator recycling • April 2007 – RTF established deemed savings for residential freezer recycling • Scale & Available PNW Data • 7 PNW Utilities’ 2009 programs recycled 34,000 units • Translates to nearly 4 aMW using current RTF values • Data collected by JACO in the following utility programs: • Avista, ETO, Snohomish, Tacoma, Seattle, PSE, and Idaho Power • Current Deemed Measures:

  3. Measure’s Relationship to 6th Plan Reason(s) it's not in the Plan • The Plan already accounts for savings from natural replacement of the existing stock.   • The baseline condition is "standard practice" efficiency of new equipment at the start of the Plan (2010).   • With a 20-year life, all refrigerators get replaced during the planning period with at least the baseline condition efficiency.   • Savings from refrigerator decommissioning only last until the unit would be replaced on normal burnout, something well short of 20 years. • The savings from existing equipment efficiency to current standard practice efficiency are already "locked in" since codes/standards/standard practices are not assumed to go backward.   • There is no additional savings potential over the long-term from decommissioning.    •  The Plan acknowledges it does not provide an exhaustive list of all the available cost-effective measures that can be performed over the next 20 years. Reason(s) utilities can claim "early retirement" savings • Decommissioning saves energy.  • Decommissioning gets the Region to the long-term target early (speeds up natural replacement) • Assuming the savings are cost-effective, this adds value to the Region. • Cost-effectiveness depends on a number of factors • how programs are structured, the natural replacement cycle, the age distribution of the stock being decommissioned, the cost of the decommissioning, the timing and depth of future improvements in standards, etc.  Note: Since savings from refrigerator decommissioning are much like the  savings achieved with code/standard changes, we have to take care not to count them twice when reporting regional savings in the regional roll-up.

  4. Measure Analysis Overview Energy Savings = (kWhold)×(Fpartuse) ×(Baselineadjustment) • kWhold: Average Annual Energy Use of Recycled Refrigerators (and Freezers) • Fpartuse: Part-Use Factor • Takes into account units that would have been operated part of the year, or not at all • Baselineadjustment: Baseline Adjustments • Takes into account units that would have been taken out of service without the program Measure Life = Remaining Useful Life of the Equipment Measure Cost = Collection Cost + Recycle Cost + Incentive + Program Administration Costs

  5. “It is clear that, despite over a decade of practice, evaluations of appliance recycling programs continue to suffer from significant uncertainty in key performance parameters.” [Eric Daly, Val Jensen, and Bruce Wall] “Evaluation of the Energy and Environmental Effects of the California Appliance Early Retirement and Recycling Program,” Energy Program Evaluation Conference, Seattle, 2003.

  6. Energy SavingsDetermining kWhold Site/Lab Factor: Adjustment for DOE test lab performance to in situ performance kWh at-manufacture: AHAM (extrapolated) average annual energy use (lab-tested) for each model year kWh degradation: Increased energy use from efficiency degradation over time (kWh degradationi = unit agei x performance degradation factor) n: # units recycled in 2009 (JACO 2009 PNW data) C: correction factor to adjust 2009 data to a deemed value for 2010-2012

  7. Energy SavingsDetermining kWhold Site/Lab Factor = 0.81 Issue: DOE Lab Test at 90 deg ambient, empty, no door openings; different than “real world”.

  8. Energy SavingsDetermining kWhold kWh At-Manufacture • AHAM Energy Use Data • Average manufacturer-reported at-manufacture energy use, by year of production. • Data back to 1970’s; extrapolated beyond that • These are the data used by the current RTF analysis • JACO Energy Use Data (not used in savings calc) • At-manufacture energy use by model • Data available for some, but not all (~52%)

  9. AHAM: Market Average, with extrapolation in earlier years; JACO: Average of models with a match On average, for JACO data collected, JACO kWh/year about 7% higher than AHAM

  10. On average, for JACO data collected, JACO kWh/year about 20% higher than AHAM • AHAM: Market Average, with extrapolation in earlier years; JACO: Average of models with a match

  11. Energy SavingsDetermining kWhold Performance Degradation Factor = 1.25%/year

  12. Energy SavingsDetermining kWhold C Factor = 0.95 • Issue • JACO data represent mix of models recycled in 2009; however, deemed savings are for 2010 and beyond (proposed 2-year sunset date) • Suite of units recycled are expected to be of newer vintages (and therefore, more efficient) over the course of program delivery as older units are removed from circulation through the program and naturally. So, kWhold should be expected to fall over time. • Solution • C Factor • Adjusting the 2009 model years by +1, +2, and +3 years, results in: • Refrigerators: 97% (2010) to 91% (2012) of savings calculated for 2009 • Freezers: 98% (2010) to 92% (2012) of savings calculated for 2009 • Assumes same recycled model age distribution as occurred in 2009 • Sunset Date: 2 years • Adjust savings based on most recent program model year data

  13. Energy SavingsDetermining Fpartuse Part Use Factor = 0.91 • Based on participant surveys (of CA Statewide 06-08 ARP by Cadmus, 2010) • Simple Average combined factor for the three utilities = 0.91

  14. Energy SavingsDetermining Baselineadjustment Current RTF • Source: SnoPUD Evaluation • What consumer would have done • References to: ICF 2003, HeschongMahone 2002, ICF 2003, and City of Fort Collins 2005 • Whether replaced • JACO data collected through program • Where replaced with a new unit, new unit’s consumption is subtracted • This reduces the adjustment to 57% (assuming error is fixed) • Uncovered an error or two • Energy use of models newer than the average (1980) are not included in the average UEC • Adjustments are not summed properly

  15. What would have happened to the Refrigerator or Freezer without the Program? Energy SavingsDetermining Baselineadjustment • Would have kept, but not used • Would have discarded, and unit destroyed • Would have kept and used • Would have discarded, but unit still in use • Baseline adjustment is typically determined through participant and non-participant surveys. • Analysis can be complicated and varies. Subject to an Adjustment Not Subject to an Adjustment

  16. Energy SavingsDetermining Baselineadjustment Baselineadjustment = 57% (refrigerators); 68% (freezers)

  17. Energy SavingsIssue/Discussion Proposed Baseline Adjustment method assumes a 1-for-1 reduction in the # of refrigerators remaining in the population. (Less refrigerators per household) • This assumption causes an overstatement of savings. • In some cases, units that are recycled would have been used* in a “required” situation. Because of the program, the user* is forced to acquire an alternative unit. • On average, we would expect the efficiency of the alternative unit to be higher than the efficiency of the recycled unit • In these cases, savings should be kWhRecycledUnit – kWhAlternativeUnit, not simply kWhRecycledUnit • However, there are no data to support an adjustment. • Example: Existing RTF method subtracts the new unit’s energy use (assumed to be Energy Star energy use) for all units reported by program participants as “replaced with a new unit”; and assigns 0 kWh/yr savings to all units reported as “replaced with a used unit”. • Issue: Program participant responses are mostly irrelevant to this issue; whether the subsequent user* would have used the unit in a “required” situation is relevant (and unknown). • What value to use for kWhAlternativeUnit? • Solution: (?) Options – Judgment Call • A: Assume it’s a small effect, so ignore it. • B: Assume some amount (50%?) of refrigerators are “replaced” in some way, and assume the “replacement” unit uses (500?) kWh/year.(kWhAlternativeUnit) • * The “user” in this case could be the program participant, or the next would-be owner of the unit.

  18. Energy SavingsRecap & Results Energy Savings = (kWhold)×(Fpartuse) ×(Baselineadjustment)

  19. Measure Life • Continue using RTF’s relationship of age to measure life (graph) • Updated to 2010 as start year • Prior to 1975, remaining life constant at 6.1 years • Apply measure life to all 2009 JACO data to develop a weighted average

  20. Measure Cost • Current RTF assumed measure cost: $140/unit • $110 for implementation • Pickup costs • Recycling costs • Data collection and tracking • $30 customer incentive • Proposed updated measure cost: $130/unit • $100 for implementation • Costs have come down (per JACO and Phil Sisson estimates) • Customer incentive remains in the RTF measure cost since it’s an integral part of the program (not a transfer payment)

  21. Proposed Measures (Results) • Option A • Option B • Update measure with new program data w/in 2 years • Decision?

  22. Other Questions • Utilities are starting programs to recycle appliances collected by New Appliance Dealers (not in-home pickup). • Should these be handled as a separate deemed measure? • Baseline adjustment could be different for these types of programs. • Adjustment may be expected to be lower for retail-pickup programs than in-home pickup programs since retailers often offer this service already • However, recent survey results in ComEd territory showed higher NTG for retail-pickup versus in-home pickup (very small sample size, though) • Proposal: • Provisionally deem these with the same values. (no distinct measure) • Evaluation suggested. • Review in 2 years. (likely to have more data from national sources) • Should Residential-style refrigerators from non-residential buildings be allowed? • JACO reports some utilities allow these, but they’ve only come in in very small numbers. • Proposal: Yes, allow them.

More Related